On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:45 AM Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote:
> If you want me to answer, how about asking a question? Or telling me
> that you'd like some feedback? I don't see how I should know that you
> expect a reply to a simple statement of facts.
I expressed concern in fairly strong terms, and received no answer for
a full week. I consider that "ignoring the RMT", but you take issue
with that characterization because my email didn't ask an explicit
question with a question mark. Despite the fact that it is generally
understood that "committers own their own items", and that the RMT
exists as a final check on that.
Clearly we disagree about this. I don't think that there is anything
to be gained from discussing this any further, though. I suggest that
we leave it at that.
> > Okay, I understand that now.
>
> And? Do you care at all?
I don't want to upset anybody for any reason. I regret that my words
have upset you, but I think that they were misinterpreted in a way
that I couldn't possibly have predicted. The particular aspect of last
Friday's email that you took exception to was actually intended to
convey that it was not personal. Remember, my whole ethos is to avoid
strong RMT intervention when possible, to make it impersonal. My
framing of things had the opposite effect to the one I'd intended,
ironically.
> Sure, I don't question that. Again, I knew about the issue, only
> misjudged it in the beginning. Your email from July 30 did show me that
> it was more urgent but still didn't create the impression that there
> was such a short deadline. In my opinion my prior email already
> explained that I was on it, but couldn't give an estimate.
How could anybody on the RMT judge what was going on sensibly? There
was *zero* information from you (the original committer, our point of
contact) about an item that is in a totally unfamiliar part of the
code to every other committer. We were effectively forced to make very
conservative assumptions about the deadline. I think that it's very
likely that this could have been avoided if only you'd engaged to some
degree -- if you had said it was a short deadline then we'd likely
have taken your word for it, as the relevant subject matter expert and
committer in charge of the item. But we were never given that choice.
> Well, you did lay out what the decision would be and I fully agreed
> with it. So again, what was there to do? Had you asked me if I agreed,
> I would told you.
If the patch being reverted was so inconsequential to you that you
didn't even feel the need to write a brief email about it, why did you
commit it in the first place? I just don't understand this at all.
--
Peter Geoghegan
